The headline in this column promises some ideas about the Supreme Court, so now I’m going to move to the Court. The country’s attention was focused elsewhere two weeks ago when specifically five judges of the Trump administration gave what it needed to activate one of the most enthusiastic and unjustified means of all recent immigration policies. This was the radical expansion of the “public charge” rule, which prevents entry or permanent residence to a migrant “who could at any time become a public charge.”
The concept of “public official” as such is not new. This was part of the country’s early efforts to control immigration in the late nineteenth century, as it was used to exclude those who might end up in poor housing or its equivalent. This historical definition – “relies mainly on government for monetary assistance or on institutionalization in the long run” – was codified in 1999 as a “field directive” issued to federal immigration officials.
Last August, the administration created a new definition. Any immigrant who receives the equivalent of 12 months of federal benefits over a three-year period will be considered a public fee or not eligible for permanent residence or a path to citizenship. Specific benefits include child food assistance under the SNAP program; receipt of the housing voucher or section 8 in public housing; and medical treatment under medical aid. The new rule, titled “Unacceptability in Grounds Charges”, collects interest – meaning that three of the benefits received in one month are three months out of 12.
States, cities, and nonprofits across the country immediately filed lawsuits, with various initial results. Prosecutors argued that the fundamental change of definition was “arbitrary and capricious”, violating the basic requirement of the Administrative Procedures Law of “logical decision-making”.
In October, a federal district judge in New York, George Daniels, She ruled in favor Of two groups of plaintiffs, one headed by New York State and the other, a coalition of nonprofits. Judge Daniels indicated that the government “was given many opportunities to express rational grounds for equality between the public official and the receipt of benefits for 12 months during a 36-month period, especially when this was not the rule,” but her lawyer “failed and explained that” when he changed Action of the previous policy agency, the agency does not need to demonstrate that the reasons for the new policy are: Best One of the reasons for the old. However, you must show that there are good reasons for the new policy. “
Judge Daniels added: “Al Qaeda is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of justification. It is an outrage of the American dream of opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.” Noting that this policy will immediately cause “great hardship” for “hundreds of thousands of Individuals Previously Eligible for Acceptance and Permanent Residence in the United States, “issued a nationwide injunction to prevent its implementation.
The United States Court of Appeals put the second circuit on a fast track, but in the meantime, it refused to grant a restraining moratorium. So, as expected, the administration turned to its friends in the Supreme Court, and as expected, it got what it wanted. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court Residence grant From the injunction that continues through the future appeal of the Supreme Court.